|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What actually are "Family Values"
|
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210
|
Posted
The truly great thing about 'family values' as a political phrase is that nobody can come out and actually claim they are 'against' family values. It is thus a brilliant phrase to use - particularly as most people then take it to mean whatever they like.
I don't think there's a problem with 'family values' as such; but there is a problem when this is enshrined and encouraged in law. I strongly believe the government should keep out of people's personal lives as far as possible, as long as what they're doing isn't actually damaging others or society at large (of course, the 'family values' bunch think that gays, single mothers, et al, are damaging society, but that's another issue).
Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
In Theory
Ship's supernova simulator
# 2964
|
Posted
So, going on the posts of Bartolomeo and others, maybe the value of a family can be calculated as some sort of weighted sum...
--------------------
Popular culture no longer applies to me.
~ Art Brut
Posts: 1167 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ken and Marvin, pray enlighten me further. I cannot comment on the Scandinavian nations but I do not see any correlation between the Liberal Democrats, who are IMO the most left-wing party we now have, and social conservatism.
But your post was about supposed correlation between theological conservatism and right-wing politics.
And I just don't think there is round here.
In all the various church situations I've been in England, most but not all on the Evangelical end of things, I've never seen the slightest evidence that people vote differently from their non-beleiving neighbours of the same class or ethnic background.
I did get the impression, years ago, that there were perhaps more Liberal voters amongst evangelicals than you'd expect - perhaps because the Tories were percieved as the Nasty Party so Christians who might otherwise have voted for them tended to vote Liberal instead.
As far as I know the majority of my current church are likely to vote Labour - as you would expect from and mostly black group of people in the inner-city.
In more middle-calss suburban areas I think the numbers who would vote Tory go up. I'm not at all sure that being an evangelical or theologically conservative Christian has a significant effect on party affiliation at all.
In the USA, on the other hand, there seems to be a strong correlation between theological conservatism & Republican voting among white Protestant Christians - though its not absolute. Somwewhere around 70% of white people who identified as "born again" or "evangelical" said they would be voting Republican. But the same doesn't apply to black Protestants or to Roman Catholics.
Also, as Alan said, there has been a tradition of social activism amongst Christians in the UK< much of which relates more easily to the left-wing thatn the right-wing. In the 18th and 19th centuries there were strong associations between non-conformist church membership and support for the Liberals.
There has also been a smaller tradition, perhaps from an almost utopian or millenarian point of view, of very radical even revolutionary activity from some of the far-out weirdo Christians.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
Family values
2. Marriage upheld as a lifelong commitment
That's what they mean.
I'm interested in #2: how exactly does one "uphold marriage as a lifelong commitment"? By making divorce illegal? By refusing to get divorced oneself (like, say, Newt Gingrich), no matter how bad or abusive or dead one's marriage is? Or by paying lip service to marriage as a lifelong commitment and acting exactly the same as everybody else in the society?
Funny how most people who espouse "family values" have the blessing of a happy first marriage.
There's not much the government can do, though people who really believe in #2 demonstrate it in their personal values, their approach to their own marriage, and the way they counsel others.
I'm going out on a limb somewhat with this but I would say that, in my personal experience, half of the people I know who are divorced were in marriages where there was no abuse, alcoholism, or other unresolvable problem. Instead, one of the spouses saw an opportunity to "trade up" to a spouse that was more affluent, more interesting, or easier to control, or to a more freewheeling lifestyle.
Bartolomeo
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
I'm going out on a limb somewhat with this but I would say that, in my personal experience, half of the people I know who are divorced were in marriages where there was no abuse, alcoholism, or other unresolvable problem. Instead, one of the spouses saw an opportunity to "trade up" to a spouse that was more affluent, more interesting, or easier to control, or to a more freewheeling lifestyle.
Ah, very much like Newt Gingrich then. And that original champeen of family values, Ronny Raygun, was a divorced man himself.
In short, a lot of lip service. Like I said.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Thanks, Ken. I kind of get what you're saying ![[Smile]](smile.gif) . I suppose my bleat is that, like Lep, I sometimes want to vote for a candidate or party like the Lib Dems who espouse on the one hand a fairer deal for the poor and needy, but am put off by the pro-abortion and pro-gay rights credentials of the same. OTOH I could vote Tory and get someone who is ostensibly more pro-'family values' but who is also perhaps too pro-business-at-the-expense-of-the-poor (like our MP). I accept that those sort of distinctions are becoming more blurred with those on the progressive wing of the Conservative Party like the Portillistas taking up the cudgels for gay rights (heck, even Howard talks in terms of an inclusive party) and that religious convictions are much more of a party- political issue on the other side of the Pond, but I think the basic point - and my dilemma - still stands
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
This is where I get confused - which bit of "gay rights" are you so opposed to?
And why is talk of an "inclusive party" so worrying for you? Do you really want a "no poofters!" party to vote for?
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is where I get confused - which bit of "gay rights" are you so opposed to?
Are you sure you want to have this discussion?
My answers:
Civil partnerships, adoption by gay couples, the repeal of section 28, "fair" employment legislation without adequate safeguards for religious groups. To name but a few. All of which the MP in my story had campaigned for, and hence I felt unable to vote for.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I suppose, Karl, that as a more conservative evangelical, I would be unhappy with legislation that sought to put same-sex relationships (or, indeed, heterosexual non-marital relationships) on a par with marriage eg:civil unions, intestate inheritance rights etc
Matt
(edited to say: cross-posted with Lep, with whom I agree)
[ 04. November 2004, 09:02: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
And why does 'pro-Gay-rights' equate to 'anti-Family Values' (or vice versa)?
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Because they strike at the heart of the uniqueness, 'specialness' if you like, of the marriage covenant. As, of course, do the easy divorce laws and soaring divorce rate that we currently 'enjoy'; I am well aware of the deplorable hypocrisy of the likes of Newt Gingrich and the 'Back to Basics' of John 'Edwina Currie' Major on that point.
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I suppose, Karl, that as a more conservative evangelical, I would be unhappy with legislation that sought to put same-sex relationships (or, indeed, heterosexual non-marital relationships) on a par with marriage eg:civil unions, intestate inheritance rights etc
Matt
(edited to say: cross-posted with Lep, with whom I agree)
Why? What is wrong with giving them inheritance rights (for example)? I would think it is a matter of simple justice - if the one partner wants the other to have the inheritance, surely the law should support that. I honestly don't see the problem.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
See my above post
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Well, quite. It's not as if gay people, denied civil partnerships, are going to say: "stuff this for a game of soldiers, I'm going to marry a straight person instead".
It seems to me that if you want to uphold the stability of family life you need to look, primarily, at heterosexual behaviour. The whole anti gay rights agenda looks like anxious heterosexuals projecting their anxieties onto gay people to me. Am I the only person who is blind to the irony that, as heterosexuals are moving en masse away from the idea of faithful, stable and permanent relationships, gay people are being told that they are Very Wicked for seeking such things? How do gay people living in faithful, permanent and stable relationships undermine heterosexuals doing the same?
Cross posted with half a dozen people - I was agreeing with Rat.
[ 04. November 2004, 09:13: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
See my above post
Matt
Your above post does not explain what right you have to deny inheritance rights to homosexuals, Matt.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Matt - could you address the second question in my post? This is the bit I'm really interested in.
Oh, and Wot Callan Said.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I suppose, Karl, that as a more conservative evangelical, I would be unhappy with legislation that sought to put same-sex relationships (or, indeed, heterosexual non-marital relationships) on a par with marriage eg:civil unions, intestate inheritance rights etc
Matt
(edited to say: cross-posted with Lep, with whom I agree)
Why? What is wrong with giving them inheritance rights (for example)? I would think it is a matter of simple justice - if the one partner wants the other to have the inheritance, surely the law should support that. I honestly don't see the problem.
C
Just as a point of information, anyone can leave property by will to anyone else. It's what happens if you don't leave a will that's in issue. If you marry, your spouse is next of kin (although things are complicated when you have children). If you live with a same sex partner, your parents are likely to remain as next of kin.
I think the law for same sex couples is deplorably unfair, as they can't marry. I am, however, always slightly baffled by the outraged surprise of heterosexual couples who decide not to marry, then get all upset when the law treats them as ... not married!
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
If an individual wishes to leave property to any another individual by Will, he or she can do so under the existing law; if that beneficiary happens to be the sexual partner of the testator/trix, so be it. What I am against, for the reasons stated, is legislation to amend the rules of intestacy that would elevate non-marital relationships to quasi-marital status
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Matt, you replied to a question quote:
Because they strike at the heart of the uniqueness, 'specialness' if you like, of the marriage covenant
Maybe it's me being thick here, but I just don't see how this would work. It's not as if relationships are like currency - too much of it around and it gets devalued. The more faithful, committed relationships there are around, the more we all benefit. The more children there ared taken out of the care system, and adopted by loving families, the more we all benefit. The more people who are able to be accepted for what they are, the fewer people we will have in our mental health system, and the more we all benefit.
Of course, I can see the point of Lep's argument that there may be a case, under his interpretation of the scriptures, that gay partnerships are invalid, but not all Christians, let alone the average secularist, would agree with this, and MPs are obliged under oath to represent the views and interests of all their constituents.
I think that abortion is as slightly different case, because it involves another party, the unborn child, but as regard to gay marriage, I cannot see how this could be construed as anti-family. Would you care to detail how you believe that extending the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to co-habitees or gay partnerships erodes in any meaningful, testable way the more traditional family.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If an individual wishes to leave property to any another individual by Will, he or she can do so under the existing law; if that beneficiary happens to be the sexual partner of the testator/trix, so be it. What I am against, for the reasons stated, is legislation to amend the rules of intestacy that would elevate non-marital relationships to quasi-marital status
Matt
One area of property that can't always be covered by will is that of survivors pension rights. Dependenat children are usually covered but in many instances whereas a widows or widowers pension would be payable no such pension would be payable to a same-sex partner or an unmarried partner.
Things are moving in this matter but it is up to the pension scheme provider (usually the employer). There are a number of tricky cases going through at the moment regarding Gulf War dead.
[clarified, I hope]
[ 04. November 2004, 09:36: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
I think the law for same sex couples is deplorably unfair, as they can't marry. I am, however, always slightly baffled by the outraged surprise of heterosexual couples who decide not to marry, then get all upset when the law treats them as ... not married!
Which exactly highlights the unfairness in the system. If a heterosexual couple makes the choice not to marry then they should know that by doing so they choose not to recieve the same treatment under law as a married couple. The unfairness is that a homosexual couple don't get the choice.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I suppose, Karl, that as a more conservative evangelical, I would be unhappy with legislation that sought to put same-sex relationships (or, indeed, heterosexual non-marital relationships) on a par with marriage eg:civil unions, intestate inheritance rights etc
Matt
(edited to say: cross-posted with Lep, with whom I agree)
Why? What is wrong with giving them inheritance rights (for example)? I would think it is a matter of simple justice - if the one partner wants the other to have the inheritance, surely the law should support that. I honestly don't see the problem.
C
Just as a point of information, anyone can leave property by will to anyone else. It's what happens if you don't leave a will that's in issue. If you marry, your spouse is next of kin (although things are complicated when you have children). If you live with a same sex partner, your parents are likely to remain as next of kin.
I think the law for same sex couples is deplorably unfair, as they can't marry. I am, however, always slightly baffled by the outraged surprise of heterosexual couples who decide not to marry, then get all upset when the law treats them as ... not married!
Point taken, Moth. I am interested to hear if there are actually any reasons to deny committed homosexual relationships the rights that married people take for granted.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Matt, you replied to a question quote:
Because they strike at the heart of the uniqueness, 'specialness' if you like, of the marriage covenant
Maybe it's me being thick here, but I just don't see how this would work. It's not as if relationships are like currency - too much of it around and it gets devalued. The more faithful, committed relationships there are around, the more we all benefit. The more children there ared taken out of the care system, and adopted by loving families, the more we all benefit. The more people who are able to be accepted for what they are, the fewer people we will have in our mental health system, and the more we all benefit.
Of course, I can see the point of Lep's argument that there may be a case, under his interpretation of the scriptures, that gay partnerships are invalid, but not all Christians, let alone the average secularist, would agree with this, and MPs are obliged under oath to represent the views and interests of all their constituents.
I think that abortion is as slightly different case, because it involves another party, the unborn child, but as regard to gay marriage, I cannot see how this could be construed as anti-family. Would you care to detail how you believe that extending the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to co-habitees or gay partnerships erodes in any meaningful, testable way the more traditional family.
As a bona fide GLE, I can't see why either. As a lawyer, I would rather there was some record of a relationship intended to be permanent. I don't see why people can't just live together without creating legal relations if they like, but they can't then complain if they don't get the same legal rights as those who have recorded their relationship.
Therefore, I am all for civil partnerships giving next of kin rights to whoever people choose, whatever their sexual orientation.
I find it difficult to describe same sex relationships as "marriage", but I'll admit that's not a well-thought-out position on my part.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Matt - could you address the second question in my post? This is the bit I'm really interested in.
Oh, and Wot Callan Said.
There's nothing wrong with an 'inclusive party'.I'm not sure I said there was ![[Confused]](confused.gif) . Where I struggle, for the reasons I've given, is with a party that advances the gay rights agenda
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Matt, you replied to a question
<snip>
Of course, I can see the point of Lep's argument that there may be a case, under his interpretation of the scriptures, that gay partnerships are invalid, but not all Christians, let alone the average secularist, would agree with this, and MPs are obliged under oath to represent the views and interests of all their constituents.
I think that abortion is as slightly different case, because it involves another party, the unborn child, but as regard to gay marriage, I cannot see how this could be construed as anti-family. Would you care to detail how you believe that extending the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to co-habitees or gay partnerships erodes in any meaningful, testable way the more traditional family.
Ah-ha, now we get to the meat.
1. Should a theological position mean that people who do not agree with your theological position are denied rights?
2. If marriage is so sacrisanct, and therefore presumably the rights and responsibilities of marriage are to be respected, how does spreading those rights and responsibilities to others (outside of the traditional understanding of marriage) weaken them? Inheritance is a bad example for me, as I know little about it, but surely everyone can agree that some things are reasonable for the state to give to committed relationships. Surely the fact that they have been reserved in the past for marriage is irrelevant.
3. Even if we could all agree that certain behaviours were 'unbiblical' how does that play with a society which does not accept those things and in fact in which we are in a minority?
As I said before, the church is to be prophetic. The problems arise when the church slips into a quasi-governmental position and starts throwing its weight around.
C
[Deleted extra code.]
[ 04. November 2004, 10:53: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Where I struggle, for the reasons I've given, is with a party that advances the gay rights agenda
Surely it's not a gay rights agenda - it's a human rights agenda. No one (at least not in any major political party) advocates greater rights for homosexual people, just equal rights. The right to be treated as a normal human being rather than some sort of pervert. Is that really too much to ask for?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Would you care to detail how you believe that extending the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to co-habitees or gay partnerships erodes in any meaningful, testable way the more traditional family.
Because it presents it as only one of a number of equally morally valid options. Just as the view that Christianity is only one of many ways to God undermines its unique value, so does the similar moral relativism with regard to relationships devalue marriage
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
So, then, Family Values is actually a negative concept? It is not about the encouragement of the positive things listed earlier (stable families, happy homes and the like), but about stopping other people doing things. Particularly, it seems, things that might make them a bit more like us. Stable families, happy homes and the like.
Seem like a bit of a no-win situation for the gays and loose women.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Sorry, Matt, read a little too much into your comment about Michael Howard.
I'm still not sure how my marriage is undermined by, e.g., Ms Winterbottom being allowed to marry her partner. I can't help feeling that that's none of my business.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Would you care to detail how you believe that extending the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to co-habitees or gay partnerships erodes in any meaningful, testable way the more traditional family.
Because it presents it as only one of a number of equally morally valid options. Just as the view that Christianity is only one of many ways to God undermines its unique value, so does the similar moral relativism with regard to relationships devalue marriage
Matt
But Matt, this is ridiculous. The fact that other faiths stake a claim to exclusivity is irrelevant to my claim to exclusivity. Its unique value is not undermined in the slightest, and more to the point, I would expect the state (which is, afterall, for everyone) to treat all faiths with respect. I don't understand how my faith is undermined by asking local planning authorities to consider the building of mosques fairly.
Similarly, I don't see how my ideal of marriage is undermined by the state recognising other relationships. That is its duty, IMO.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Rat, it's also about the reinforcement and support of those who are married
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
How exactly are male/female marriages supported and reinforced by the proponents of "Family Values", practically?
And how is that hindered by letting Peter Tatchell marry his partner, practically?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Would you care to detail how you believe that extending the rights currently enjoyed by married couples to co-habitees or gay partnerships erodes in any meaningful, testable way the more traditional family.
Because it presents it as only one of a number of equally morally valid options. Just as the view that Christianity is only one of many ways to God undermines its unique value, so does the similar moral relativism with regard to relationships devalue marriage
Matt
I don't quite follow this. In my life, I try to be an example of the values I espouse. I am, and have for over 20 years been, faithfully married to my husband. I live as upright and honest a life as I am able. I give to church and charities. I support my extended family, caring for my parents when required, bringing up my children within the community of the church, supporting my sister when she was left alone with two young children. I take part in my local community by being a school governor.
In all this I am doing all I can to be the "light of the world" in the best way I know.
How does my denying rights to others assist me in this? Am I trying to make myself look better by making life difficult for them? Surely if my way is truly best, they will see this by my example, not by my denial of their rights!
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Matt, you wrote in answer to my question. quote:
Because it presents it as only one of a number of equally morally valid options. Just as the view that Christianity is only one of many ways to God undermines its unique value, so does the similar moral relativism with regard to relationships devalue marriage
Sorry, Matt, that wasn't quite the question I was asking.
Firstly, I would want to take issue with you that the proponants of equal rights for cohabitees or gay partnerships hold thew position that they do as a result of moral relativism. Alan has eloquently suggested another motivation, so I won't pursue it any further, other than to note my agreement with him.
The question was about actual disadvantage, rather than the theoretical philosophical base. I'm not quite sure that your analogy is a valid one, but just to pursue it towards what I was getting at, would christianity be damaged (e.g. would persecution increase, or would fewer people become converts) if its uniqueness was compromised. I'm not trying to answer that question here, merely pointing to the sort of questions I was hoping to be answered.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
JJ, Cheesy* and Moth, will try to answer, but have just been notified that my aged grandmother has suffered another fall, so will need to shortly dash off and attend to that particular family value with my apologies
In the same way that relativism re Christianity in the church diminishes its worth therein, so does relativism re marriage by society diminishes its moral worth therein. Therefore, to reply to Alan's point about human rights, it's not about the law treating people as perverts, but recognising that there are certain rights that should only properly appertain to marriage.
As far as strengthening marriage goes, both the church and the state do some good which could and should be expanded eg; marriage preparation courses, marriage guidance counselling, reinstatement of the married couples' tax allowance, reform of the divorce laws etc
Will try to get back to this thread asap, but am signing off for the moment
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Therefore, to reply to Alan's point about human rights, it's not about the law treating people as perverts, but recognising that there are certain rights that should only properly appertain to marriage.
And, my point wasn't that there shouldn't be rights that properly appertain to marriage. My point was that to deny people the choice to have those rights by getting married is to treat them as inferior to others who are allowed to choose those rights. The argument applies across the board - if it's wrong to prevent people from marrying if they have different skin colours why isn't it wrong to prevent people from marrying if their sexual preferences are different?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Matt, you replied to a question quote:
Because they strike at the heart of the uniqueness, 'specialness' if you like, of the marriage covenant
Of course, I can see the point of Lep's argument that there may be a case, under his interpretation of the scriptures, that gay partnerships are invalid, but not all Christians, let alone the average secularist, would agree with this, and MPs are obliged under oath to represent the views and interests of all their constituents.
I was not saying that they shouldn't. All I was commenting on was that the parties that have held a similar view with me on this tend to have economic policies that I deplore. That was my only point.
The phrase "family values" does tend to presuppose a particular view of the family. Most of the time, those who use it, and agree with it, me included ,see a male/female lifelong relationship as the basic unit around which a family should grow. Many see this as a God given ordinance, some merely see it as the way to promote a stable society.
The promotion of other forms of relationship to have the value, rights and privileges, by this view, de facto devalues traditional marriage.
Before you all chorus "but why?" the answer is because male female marriage is valued by preserving it as unique. If people want to have other types of relationships I agree they should be free too, but my preference would be that the state protects and preserves this type of family as the basic unit of society.
I realise I am in a minority both here, and quite possibly in society at large, but the point of having a liberal democracy is that minority views have a right to be heard. At the moment, I was simply saying that there is no party that presents these views.
So, interestingly, while I was very anti-war, and broadly socialist in my politics, pro looser immigration laws etc, and I never read the Daily Mail, I don't think Middle America should be decried as stupid or ignorant for voting Bush.
He promised to protect values they think are important. The voted for him. While I probably wouldn't have done so myself because of his environmental policies, I find his stance against moral relatvism on these issues sadly lacking in any British political party, and were one of them to take it (which seems a pure speculation at the moment), it may well influence my vote far more than their economic policies.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Before you all chorus "but why?" the answer is because male female marriage is valued by preserving it as unique. If people want to have other types of relationships I agree they should be free too, but my preference would be that the state protects and preserves this type of family as the basic unit of society.
Why does preserving something as unique make it greater valued? Why does the existance of other marriage relationships damage the heterosexual marriage with children (which is what I think the word "family" within the phrase under discussion refers to) as the basic unit of society?
Who says that a man and woman, with one or more children, is the basic unit of society anyway? Many on the political right would seem to think the basic unit of society is the individual consumer with money to spend. Many on the far political left would have the basic unit of society being a collective far larger than family relationships. In many cultures the extended family or clan is the basic unit of society.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
JJ, Cheesy* and Moth, will try to answer, but have just been notified that my aged grandmother has suffered another fall, so will need to shortly dash off and attend to that particular family value with my apologies
Noted. I hope she is soon back on her feet.
quote:
In the same way that relativism re Christianity in the church diminishes its worth therein, so does relativism re marriage by society diminishes its moral worth therein. Therefore, to reply to Alan's point about human rights, it's not about the law treating people as perverts, but recognising that there are certain rights that should only properly appertain to marriage.
This isn't an answer, sorry. Moral relativism in the church has nothing to do with relativism by the state. You have still to establish why the state should recognise the rights of one section of society and not another. There may be a reason, but you have not supplied one.
quote:
As far as strengthening marriage goes, both the church and the state do some good which could and should be expanded eg; marriage preparation courses, marriage guidance counselling, reinstatement of the married couples' tax allowance, reform of the divorce laws etc
Will try to get back to this thread asap, but am signing off for the moment
Matt
Sure. It makes perfect sense for the state to recognise and affirm long term relationships. Again this does not help decide why (to the state) homosexual relationships are any different to heterosexual ones.
Personally, I don't really see how claiming a strong belief in 'family values' is ever going to help.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why does preserving something as unique make it greater valued?
I'm not really sure how to answer this - I thought it was implicit in all the discussions. Certainly the pro-gay rights groups say that the current state of play "devalues" gay relationships - that seems to be the main plank in their argument.
quote:
Who says that a man and woman, with one or more children, is the basic unit of society anyway? Many on the political right would seem to think the basic unit of society is the individual consumer with money to spend. Many on the far political left would have the basic unit of society being a collective far larger than family relationships. In many cultures the extended family or clan is the basic unit of society.
Indeed. I am not denying such views exist, I am saying that my view is that the male/female lifelong relationship is the basis of healthy communities. I believe that the Scriptures teach this. Others have disagreed me. I disagree with them. I wish there was a party the represented my point of view, with vaguely socialist economic policies. That's all.
If you want to discuss the rights and wrongs of gay marriage, I am happy to do so in Dead Horses.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The phrase "family values" does tend to presuppose a particular view of the family. Most of the time, those who use it, and agree with it, me included ,see a male/female lifelong relationship as the basic unit around which a family should grow. Many see this as a God given ordinance, some merely see it as the way to promote a stable society.
Yep, that's how I see it too.
quote:
The promotion of other forms of relationship to have the value, rights and privileges, by this view, de facto devalues traditional marriage.
I disagree.
quote:
Before you all chorus "but why?" the answer is because male female marriage is valued by preserving it as unique. If people want to have other types of relationships I agree they should be free too, but my preference would be that the state protects and preserves this type of family as the basic unit of society.
I still don't see why letting anybody marry devalues the 'traditional' family.
I do, however, disagree strongly with giving the same rights to an unmarried couple as to a married couple. That would devalue marriage in my view.
So, the way I see it, giving everyone the right to marry whomever they choose would actually strengthen the institution of marriage, as we would no longer have any unmarried couples claiming the same rights and priveliges.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Who says that a man and woman, with one or more children, is the basic unit of society anyway? Many on the political right would seem to think the basic unit of society is the individual consumer with money to spend. Many on the far political left would have the basic unit of society being a collective far larger than family relationships. In many cultures the extended family or clan is the basic unit of society.
This is an excellent point. I would argue (especially if there was a drink in it for me) that the extended family is a much better basic unit of society, being much less fragile and less claustrophobic than the nuclear family.
It is also of longer standing. The nuclear family is a relatively recent innovation and not, I would say, an unreservedly successful one.
I think it is interesting that the ideal pointed to by Family Values politicians is one that, if it ever existed at all in any real sense, existed only for a very brief time and could better be called an anomaly than the mainstream of family history. But maybe, as Callan said, an acheivable ideal is not the point of the exercise.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I am curious about the reasoning behind the idea of traditional marriage somehow needing encouragement and support. Is there some feeling that the institution of marriage is actually under attack? Are we talking about the marriage covenent as celebrated by the Church, or are we talking about the marriage contract as enforced by the State? I ask because there has been quite a bit of discussion on these boards concerning the meaningful difference between the two. That distinction of meaning seems to have gotten a bit muddled in this particular thread. Perhaps I'm wrong, so please enlighten me.
I'm going to forge ahead on the assumption that separating the two will facilitate logical discussion.
If the discussion solely centers around churches recognizing homosexual marriage or unions, then surely no one wants the State making that decision. If the decision is up to the Church then this discussion belongs in Dead Horses. Avoiding the deceased equine for the moment, a Church wedding that does not carry the sanction of the State will not affect people's property and civil rights. I know some ministers who would be pleased to challenge the doctrine of their denominations and perform a marriage for a gay couple. That would not confer any State regulated rights or privileges on the happy couple.
If the discussion centers solely on the State I am unclear on how this would in any way denigrate the institution of marriage as celebrated by the Church. Just because the State recognized homosexual unions the Church would not have to do so as well. (There may be some such requirement in States with an official church that if the State says it can happen, the Church must follow. If that is so my argument does not apply.)
If the State recognized homosexual unions how would that take away from the institution of marriage? Would it make it less "special?" Is there really an argument that heterosexuals are entitled to not only the same rights as anyone else, but to being "special" as well? What other areas would you like to have the State reserve for you as being "special?" Perhaps something about your particular denomination and not having to stand in line at the grocery?
Is there some notion that allowing homosexuals to share in the kinds of property and civil rights married persons enjoy would take those rights away from heterosexuals? How? Has anyone seriously argued that property and civil rights are in limited supply such that giving rights to some means that others will have to surrender their rights?
My feeling is that the argument against State recognition of homosexual unions has to do with religious belief. If that is the case you should come clean about it. If it is not, please explain how a civil union for homosexuals detracts in any form or fashion from a Church celebration of a a marriage before God, or a State recognition of status.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
So, then, Family Values is actually a negative concept? It is not about the encouragement of the positive things listed earlier (stable families, happy homes and the like), but about stopping other people doing things. Particularly, it seems, things that might make them a bit more like us. Stable families, happy homes and the like.
When I have seen references to 'family values' on various sites, there seems to be a strong (and bizarre) idea on some that 'our children' should be protected from even knowing that 'other' people do not live according to the model which Callan superbly set forth.
The arts and humanities are suspect - no film, play, book, etc., that illustrates life beyond the rosy dream is allowed, because 'real life' cannot exist - only 'role models.' (I dare say 'our children' could not be allowed to read the bible.) Television is the ruination of the world. 'Our children' must not ever see anyone drink a glass of wine - bad example. History must be filtered so the evil is removed.
Then again, I need to recall that the arts and humanities (my own field.. pure role model that I am, with all my gin and fags) do not come into play. All that the young do is schoolwork, aside from when they join mum and dad for some wholesome, planned family activity (which I assume includes aerobic exercise), during which they may collect pictures for their fun album.
There is a disturbing sense, in some of these sites, that the secret to a happy world is total parental control. Even those approaching adulthood should have influence and instruction only from parents. How one would be able to live one's values, whatever they are, in future if one has been taught to hate or fear anyone whose views are contrary is beyond me.
Of course, the real problems in one's own family (and every family has them) need to be ignored.
There seems to be a curious contradiction. On the one hand, concern for those who are (for example) without health care does not matter, because it does not affect 'me.' Yet 'I' am to be outraged at what other people are doing in their beds. ('Our children' cannot exactly know what is going on in anyone's bed, save that there is some glorious union called marriage - and one must never call a bonk a bonk, but make it seem some mysterious religious rite, before which the participants find a scripture verse to read together.)
I had previously mentioned that I come from a family that cared for one another - and it was survival. Yet there was no sheltering from the 'real world' - the entire reason we often needed to stay together to survive was because of very 'real' situations.
I'll spare all of you my commentary on how very much some of the 'family values' myth reminds me of the Hanoverian (especially Victorian) era.
[ 04. November 2004, 11:27: Message edited by: Newman's Own ]
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I am saying that my view is that the male/female lifelong relationship is the basis of healthy communities. I believe that the Scriptures teach this. Others have disagreed me. I disagree with them.
I agree with you. But I think that there is something more subtle at work here as well.
"Family values" includes the idea that setting boundaries on behavior, especially sexual behavior, is fundamental to a healthy society. A people's ability to do this will predict their success in every area of life.
It is like the fabled experiment in which children were left alone in a room with a table full of chocolate, and told not to take any. Some obeyed and some did not. The children were then tracked for decades to see if taking or not taking the chocolate was in any way predictive of future performance. I'm sure you know the results.
The idea with "family values" is not that any one particular behavior makes or breaks it. It is that the more people are able to adhere to moral behaviors, especially in the area of sexuality, the better off they will be, and the better off society will be. Sexual behaviors are especially important because intimate social behaviors are intuitively recognized as more central to the core of a person's being than other behaviors.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Leprechaun refers to the family as 'the basic unit of society'. In fact, the basic unit of society is the individual living in relation, within the community. And only when we afford the individual the human rights due to it, rather than waiting before each individual conforms to a (temporarily) preferred equation of moral relationship, will we really begin to live and participate in a society that is fit for everyone to live in.
Otherwise according to Lep's definition widows, single people, children/people in care etc are all unworthy of 'protection and preservation'. They may not constitute someone's particular Disneyesque view of society, but they are still society, or at least, community nevertheless. And the 'unique' configuration of 'family' - however that is interpreted - no more deserves to be protected or preserved than anyone else.
That isn't to say there shouldn't be help for families, tailored to their needs etc; but it is to say that such help, acceptance should be equally available for those who are 'uniquely' in their own relationship with community, whatever that may be.
Still can't understand why Matt Black thinks the particularity of Christ's gospel is compromized by those who might wish to extend 'family values' to all of God's children. It's rather strange to make a deduction that someone must be assumed not to believe in this particularity because they wish to see homosexual couples share the same rights as heterosexual couples. I can't see the connection myself.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
When I have seen references to 'family values' on various sites, there seems to be a strong (and bizarre) idea on some that 'our children' should be protected from even knowing that 'other' people do not live according to the model which Callan superbly set forth.
But of course.
If "our children" are protected from hearing about such things, they will never want to do them.
The fear is (I suspect) that making homosexual marriage legal would encourage "our children" to try it, in much the same way that legalising cocaine would encourage "our children" to try it.
I've actually heard "may all your children be straight" used as a (secular) blessing. Same disease, different symptom.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
My feeling is that the argument against State recognition of homosexual unions has to do with religious belief. If that is the case you should come clean about it. If it is not, please explain how a civil union for homosexuals detracts in any form or fashion from a Church celebration of a a marriage before God, or a State recognition of status.
Tortuf, I think this hits the nail on the head.
I typed a long and crafted much edited reply to this and then my computer swallowed it. I'll try again.
I think the issue of how much Christians should seek to see Christian values reflected in secular society is a vexed one, and one in which, ISTM, the Christian Coalition are all at sea.
American Evangelicals seem to very much to take the view that society should relfect Christian values as much as possible, and seek to see that realised in current day government. Maybe this is because they see their nation as somehow the people of God, I don't know. The downside of this is that they are always teaching law not grace in their political manifestos, which is, in some senses, non-Gospel.
British evangelicals tend to be much more nuanced in these areas, which is partly cultural. But it is also because I think they have a different understanding of how the law should apply to those outside the people of God. Many would, if they thought about it, see the "nation" of the OT fulfilled in the church, and thus the precepts of the law as something that should be reflected in the church family, with an emphasis on interaction with the world being about sharing the message of grace to see more come into the family. Thus the church takes on the role of the "nation" in the OT as being a model of God's grace to the wider world, rather than seeking to impose Christian values on the secular nation. While this means they tend to be less virulent on "family value" issues, it has often led to a closed eye approach to issues like fair trade and social justice, which are "outside" issues, and therefore "covered" by Gospel proclamation.
Me, I'm somewhere between the two. I think merely harping on about moral (or justice!) issues is actually anti-Gospel, for it reinforces the preconception most people have about Christianity that it is about following rules and being good. But I have a strong enough doctrine of common grace to want to see God's values (as I understand them) reflected in society. That's why for example, I would want to vote for a candidate who was pro-life, AND more welcoming towards asylum seekers than our current government.
How did I come to this half way house? Well, a number of ways, but I am basically pro governments making rules that help the Gospel be proclaimed, and do not legitimise, support or lend credence to lifestyles which are going to make it more difficult for people to respond to the Gospel.
So, in short, I don't know whether that counts as a "religious" objection to civil gay marriage or not - but I have tried, as you suggested, to come clean!
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Indeed. I am not denying such views exist, I am saying that my view is that the male/female lifelong relationship is the basis of healthy communities. I believe that the Scriptures teach this.
Hoping that the opinion of someone who is not worthy to be thought of as 'the basis of a healthy community' (which makes me what, I wonder?) will be permitted, can I say this is hardly to be believed?
Scripturally 'honour your father and your mother' vies with 'unless you hate family.....', and Paul's teaching on marriage; and presents a complicated and nuanced view of how human beings relate in family, and how that whole relation is to be submitted firstly to God.
So healthy communities are built not on random men and women getting (though often not staying) married, but on relationship with the Creator; that's my understanding of what scripture teaches in terms of community. Scriptural analogies of God as husband and Israel as wife; as the Church as bride and Christ the groom are too easily misinterpreted and abused to over-glorify this particular way of being in relationship.
I would say it's fairly clear that God's expectations of how we relate to one another are founded on 'loving our neighbour as ourselves' and prioritizing him above all else in the loyalty and idolatry scheme of things. And this is how healthy communities, for everyone including family, are created. Everything else is worked out from there.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Are we talking about the marriage covenent as celebrated by the Church, or are we talking about the marriage contract as enforced by the State?
I'm talking about the marriage contract enforced by the State. I have no problems with a religious group making other decisions about who they'd permit to receive a religious ceremony to mark marriage - be that everyone living in the parish, members of this church, people who agree with the doctrines of the church or whatever. I do reserve the right to have my views heard when discussing the question within my own church, I just don't see what right I have to tell others how to do things.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
